Math Update

This article appeared in today's Times. It is about a math panel appointed by President Bush. This article says so much of what has been said about what is needed. From the article:

"Schools could improve students' sluggish math scores by hammering home the basics, such as addition and multiplication, and then increasing the focus on fractions and geometry, a presidential panel recommended Thursday."

This is key because when you talk relevance to kids about math you can say, "Are you ever planning to cook? Do home repair? Shop? Balance your checkbook? You'll need decimals, fractions and multiplication."

When you talk rigor you need these basics because:

"Because success in algebra is linked to higher graduation rates and college enrollment, the panel focused on improving areas that form the foundation for algebra. Average U.S. math scores on a variety of tests drop around middle school, when algebra coursework typically begins. That trend led the panel to focus on what's happening before kids take algebra.

A major goal for students should be mastery of fractions, since that is a "severely underdeveloped" area and one that's important to later algebra success, the report states."

Conceptual versus basics?

"The report says both quick and effortless recall of facts and conceptual understanding of math are beneficial."

Last they talked about a societal problem:

"Teachers need to emphasize that effort pays off, because too many kids feel that they are just not good at math and give up too early, according to the report.

"In many ways this country seems to have a culture of belief in talent, or a talent-driven approach to math _ that either you can do it or you can't," Faulkner said.

He added that much more research is needed to understand why certain teachers are able to boost their students' math skills. "Very little is known about these things, surprisingly little I think to this panel _ given the importance of that question," Faulkner said."

You hear this all the time (Oprah even says she's not good at math). I used to think I wasn't "good at math" until I realized that I had little self-confidence in that area but that math can be learned and practiced and you can get better in your math skills.

It's sad that many people pass this onto kids.


Anonymous said…

I'll tell you what I tell my kids,

'You aren't Einstein - he's dead.

In fact

You're not anyone else,

you are you,

and you can do math.


I tried tying to pop figures, but to my 14 and 16 year olds, Britney Spears and Beyonce are almost old ladies, so I gave up trying to be what I'm not,


I can't say I'm a roaring success, yet.

Our cultural attitudes towards math are idiotic -

unless you have the natural ability of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1% of the population, then you can't do math.

Actually, you probably won't do well competing against that 1/2 of 1/2 of 1%. Against everyone else you can do pretty well, if you work at it.

Big deal.

Of course, most people convince themselves they're idiots about math before they can calculate 1/2 of 1/2 of 1%, and then they spend the rest of their lives reinforcing each other's idiocy about math, so my arguement goes right over their heads.

Bob Murphy
dan dempsey said…
Dear Seattle School Directors and Dr. Goodloe-Johnson,

Last night in my testimony, I outlined why the decision making model of the SPS needs great improvement. The just released National Math Panel report confirms my observations. I've included 10 recommendations at the end of this communication.

The National Math Panel report was released today.

It contains the following:

Schools must streamline their math courses, focusing on "a well-defined set of the most critical topics" from early elementary school through middle school. "Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided," the report says.

Now that we have wasted a year and a few million dollars are you still dedicated to going the wrong direction?

I strongly advise the following:

1.. decision making based on the intelligent application of relevant data, needs to replace the model of aligning all change to philosophy that has yet to produce significant improvement in Math.

2.. defining grade level expectations in mathematics.

3.. providing the necessary interventions as per D44 and D45 of SPS policy.

4.. The realization that approximately one third of entering 9th graders next fall will not have tested above level one on the Math WASL. That would place them at perhaps grade three on the Singapore placement tests, and more at grade two than at grade 4.
Why is this continuing to happen in a district with D44 & D45 on the books?

5.. the immediate abandonment of alignment to the philosophy and the practices that saw a continual widening of the achievement gap in math for low income, Black, and Hispanic students.

6.. the abandonment of expensive largely useless custom assessment instruments like those produced by Edusoft. These must be replaced by off the shelf inexpensive assessments that are nationally normed like the Iowa tests or better yet the MAP test as given by the Highline school district and others.

The MAP can be given two or three times per year and each child's progress is easily measured and the MAP is a diagnostic test - thus it may be suitable for determining where necessary interventions for particular students need to occur.

7.. Since each child is an individual, abandon following the pacing plan - "This Fidelity of Implementation Model" did not work in Bellevue for Low Income, Black, or Hispanic students over the last few years.

8.. By the adoption of better curricula the necessity for expensive interventions often of little value can be reduced. More teachers less coaches please.

9.. The implementation and training for Everyday Math had little to no emphasis on improving math content knowledge of teachers. This needs to happen. Teachers need improved math content knowledge how will this occur?

10.. The reading of Don Orlich's:
School Reform: The Great American Brain Robbery

There are lots more but 10 is enough to start with, after a decade of neglect.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a response.

Thank you,

Dan Dempsey

The use of Everyday Math is to be avoided - my what a remarkable expenditure of $2 million

On to IMP in the next comment
dan dempsey said…
Dear Directors,

Here is information that you will find useful in any decision regarding the possible adoption of Interactive Mathematics Program for Seattle high schools.

Here is what's on page 23 of the NMP report out today (available HERE or at ). The following makes an Interactive Math Program (IMP) adoption indefensible from the perspective of the National Math Panel report.

An analysis of high school mathematics standards, and one state's standards in particular, suggests that high school students enrolled in mathematics courses using an integrated approach to mathematics may find it more difficult to take advanced mathematics course work (e.g., calculus or precalculus) in their senior year than high school students who are able to enroll in an Algebra II course in their sophomore or junior year.
Universal Availability of Authentic Education in Algebra

Recommendation: All school districts should ensure that all prepared students have access to an authentic algebra course—and should prepare more students than at present to enroll in such a course by Grade 8. The word "authentic" is used here as a descriptor of a course that addresses algebra consistently with the Major Topics of School Algebra (Table 1, page 16). Students must be prepared with the mathematical prerequisites for this course according to the Critical Foundations of Algebra (page 17) and the Benchmarks for the Critical Foundations (Table 2, page 20).

The Focal Points were ignored by Ms Santorno, Ms Hoste and Ms Wise as well as the school board in the Everyday Math Adoption. Now look where we are. Is the plan now to ignore the National Math Panel Report and adopt IMP? Where are the professionals who bring about improvement by intelligently applying relevant data? Thats right they are working for Boeing and Rusell as philosophical alignment is the requirement for working at the SPS and reality contact is discouraged.

So much for Ms Wise's idea of non-computationally based algebra for 8th grade students. After a decade of widening achievement gap for Low Income, Black, and Hispanic students and increasing remediation rates at colleges, it is time to make use of relevant data and finally start to intelligently apply it.

The end of decision making by philosophical alignment with out of touch ineffective and often detrimental theories must end.

I would like to see relevant data offered in support of all of Dr Goodloe-Johnson's proposals. This should be of no problem as if the decisions are data driven as we have been led to believe, she simply needs to present the data.

Some use of attribution analysis is still needed. The tossing up of numbers and saying what those number imply can not be blindly accepted.

When the relevant data is weighed the WSHS 6-period day mandate is nonsense.
The Everyday Math adoption was nonsense. The Administration and the board would not even answer my extremely relevant questions preferring instead to flush away millions of dollars. The Connected Math Project2 use is also miles away from the NMP recommendations.

If Ms Wise and Ms Santorno continue to ignore all the recommendations once again and still recommend IMP, I urge you to vote NO. I will be looking for 7 NO votes.

If you vote for IMP. This time you could at least issue an explanation of why you continue to defy the data at hand. That would enhance communication and transparency.

On May 7th Ms Santorno offered to meet with me, she then, on May 8th, refused to meet with me prior to the adoption. I believe it was because she was unable to answer relevant questions.

IMP is not a program on which reasonable people disagree. IMP is a program ,which may be recommended by people who view Philosophical Alignment as of far greater importance than statistical measurable improvement in mathematics. That hardly defines them as reasonable.

IMP was dumped in Tacoma, dumped in University Place, dumped by the National Math Panel, and is miles away from the MSSG 2004 recommendations in "What is Important in School Mathematics?". Why is a four time loser still roaming Seattle's streets? Easy answer the NSF dollars splashed about by UW. When I asked Dr King for data in support of his continued push for IMP at West Seattle as part of the PD^3 project, he had none only anecdotes. He would not even consider allowing us to make a non-IMP based decision. Garfield got big interventions in terms of extra planning etc. from NSF funds for IMP implementation. Cleveland's scores declined last year even with the UW support of IMP. WSHS without support saw their scores on the WASL stay constant. Why allow the UW to mess up WSHS even further just because they have NSF dollars? WSHS has been saddled with lame IMP for years; dollars or not we voted to dump it.

What kind of process gives us "Everyday Math" and "IMP" as recommended for adoption?

Easy answer, one that continually ignores the relevant data.


Dan Dempsey

The Math Underground
Anonymous said…

We're joining the multitudes of families who pay for private math instruction rather than wait for the Seattle School District to 'figure it out'.
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:28

Ditto here!
Jet City mom said…
We did pay for Kumon for years, even though my daughter had an IEP for a math related disability, however Kumon was addressing math, whereas her hour of instruction in resource room everyday was doing her homework while the teacher worked with other kids.

While she was at that school she had "1"s on the math WASL, yet at the same time, the teacher discouraged her from attending summer school.

She finally changed schools, and worked very hard to get caught up in math including attending summer school & taking a math skills class during the day. She has been at grade level for the last two years, despite being behind grade level for 8 years in SPS, including the two years of extra classes in high school. It was the Pathways program that brought her to the finish line of passing the math WASL.
If she can do it, despite having a diagnosed related disability, I think it can be done by other students in SPS.
However- it is easier to make excuses- it's very tempting to point fingers and I admit that the math process in SPS is at odds with itself- but if we spent as much time getting the students to where they need to be, as bitching about what we are being forced to drive, we'd all be there by now.
Anonymous said…
We went private for middle school - so they at least get one year of algebra before going back to Integrated Math crap.
Anonymous said…
I know it is a pain to arrange, but what if all of the families at your school who were paying for extra math tutoring got together and hired a teacher to work with the kids after school as a group? (I mean the families who got tutoring to expose their kids to more traditional math, not because they needed math help per se.) Wouldn't you save a lot of money? (Maybe you could charge enough to cover scholarships for poor kids too.) If you asked to meet at your school, wouldn't it send a powerful message to your administration? If a critical mass of say, 4th graders suddenly knew how to do long division couldn't that affect the way all the kids at the school were taught?

I know, it amounts to paying for public education, but you are doing that anyway.

Some K-8s hold tuition-based Algebra and Geometry classes after school for 8th graders. It's cheaper than Kumon, transportation is easier and the kids are doing it together. From what I have heard it hasn't affected the curriculum but maybe if it started in younger grades it would.
Anonymous said…
"If you asked to meet at your school, wouldn't it send a powerful message to your administration?"

No. It's been done, at least once, quite probably at several schools (the one I remember hearing about was Whitman), and as far as I am aware, it's never made the slightest difference to the administration.
Anonymous said…
We have "math club" at AEII and at Bryant. It's the same as tutoring. It's intense, higher level math, for kids who are motivated and willing to stay after school. At Bryant our math club kids are competitive with the private schools, going up against schools like Evergreen, and placing. This says a lot to me. In both cases (AEII and Bryant) classes were free, and taught by parent volunteers.
Anonymous said…
Math club is great, but not the answer for kids who say, "I hate math."

Intense, higher level math? This conversation isn't about the superstars. Come on, they simply need more practice with the basics. Something they should be getting more of during their time in class or at least homework that does that. Instead, we get one page with maybe six problems and three pages of explanations and examples for the parents.
Anonymous said…
We have (fee based with scholarships) Math Olympiad at TOPS. I believe they do puzzles/games/drills, not at all the same as tutoring. They go to competitions. It attracts kids who like math (and/or kids with parents more motivating than I am!).

We do have 8th grade 'extra math' (fee based with scholarships.) Class one day a week, at least four hours of homework (I don't know how kids can do it without parents to help). My kid will get through algebra and into geometry by the end of the year. He is learning so much...(occasionally I do motivate them!).
Charlie Mas said…
What if Where's the Math or a like-minded person or group arranged traditional math classes to be held after school - much as many schools now offer language classes after school?

Would people enroll their children in such a class?
Anonymous said…
Great idea Charlie. Run by a non-profit, there could be scholarships for families that need them. That is one of the shortcomings of the current system of pushing families into tutoring & Kumon.

I would enroll my children if it were differentiated.

Many of my friends do outside math with their children because they are ahead. The school math is not challenging. I also have many friends who do outside math because their children have processing issues or other problems learning math with the new curriculum and are falling behind.

The fidelity of implementation required for Everyday Math has left teachers unable to provide for those children the way they have in the past.
Anonymous said…
"Would people enroll their children in such a class?"

Yep classes at both k-8's (TOPS and Blaine are full.) TOPS actually runs two classes, regular and advanced. They have been doing this for 5 years, always completely full.
Anonymous said…
So if TOPS kids are well prepared for math in high school, it isn't because the basic school math is so great, it's because kids are getting extra-tu outside? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but that sounds all wrong to me, unless you're talking about kids who come in years behind and need intensive remediation.

What on earth is so hard about basic math that you can't get it taught during the school day? *Especially* in a K-8, where they could perfectly well have cross-grade classes to challenge the younger ones and allow extra review for those who need it.

It all seems so *inefficient*.

Helen Schinske
Anonymous said…
This is not new or startling, but something some of us have been saying all along. I linked to this essay before and will do it again. One of my favorite
math essays.

In the same
from about a year ago, Michael Rice added:
"What I can say is that my students come to me with absolutely no number "sense". They do not have the ability to make the leap from 1/2, to .50 to 50%. It completely baffles them. I take that to be an indictment of the "fuzzy math" being taught at the elementary and middle schools. When my students get to me, with my "old school" ways and mostly "old school" curriculum, they really struggle and I have to step away from the curriculum and teach how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions. This wastes valuable instruction time since these are skills that the students should have mastered years earlier."

Last summer a friend asked me for help with her daughter. Her daughter was floundering around in the regular math curriculum in 7th grade and one thing they both thought would be an improvement would be a faster pace and more challenging work of 8th grade Honors. Her 6th and 7th grade teachers had flip-flopped over and over that she belonged in honors, or no, she didn't belong in honors because her test scores were so low.

I said sure, let's work at it. The 7th grade teacher gave her a book to work on for the summer -- a pre-algebra book. (traditional!)

For the first half of the summer I ignored the book and printed worksheets from the internet. Factoring, Greatest Common Factor and Least Common Multiple. At first she got many wrong. Week after week we reviewed them, gradually adding harder problems, until she was completely solid on prime factorization and how GCF and LCM are related to prime factorization. Only then did we do some selected sections from the book.

In the Fall, choking under pressure and not fluent in enough topics yet, she did not do well on the placement for Honors but I talked to the teacher and he gave her a chance. She's been a solid A student and an active participant. I am convinced that all she really needed was that number sense that only really comes with complete fluency with prime factorization.

When my son was in 4th grade APP and they used the 6th grade CMP (version 1)they learned about prime factorization. Then instead of doing any drill to reinforce it, they spent way too much time on their number booklets, 16 pages of coloring and design all for one number of their choosing. In addition to drawing pictures and writing down fun facts about their favorite number, one page was devoted to the prime factorization of said number. And one page had them select one other number and show the GCF and LCM of the two numbers. Mastery? Fluency?
Anonymous said…
Helen, I definitely agree about the inefficiency of the system. I do think the TOPS version is slightly better than the standard 'Kumon for some, nothing for others' system. At least we're gaining some economies of scale and offer scholarships.

I wonder how often the kids who do well in math are achieving simply because they spend twice as much time on it as other kids, either through tutoring, parent supplementation or extra classes (in addition to the time spent at school)?

As far as "What on earth is so hard about basic math that you can't get it taught during the school day?" From my experience, it's because they spend so much time talking through problems in small groups (having one kid try to teach another something they don't really understand themselves) and then writing it down in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and not enough time just DOING it. Kill and drill sounds awful, but I think there is a place for it in basic math, just like phonics for reading.

TOPS extra 8th grade math uses what seems to be a traditional textbook (Harold R. Jacobs Elementary Algebra). It was chosen by a dad who used to teach HS math and is now a math professor. The kids get a lecture and work through some sample problems one day a week (1 1/2 hours) then they do lots of problems (about four hours worth) on their own. The repetition of basic problem solving has been really valuable for my kid. His basic arithmetic skills have improved as well as his knowledge of algebra. I do wonder how well this works for kids whose parents aren't into math though. I generally look over his homework and have caught him making mistakes that I had to talk him through. I'm happy that he's getting this leg up (considering the alternative), but it does seem unfair.

I love the idea of "Where's the Math" organizing classes. I'll try to find out if this has ever been attempted.
Anonymous said…
I should say that my 4th grader's teacher does have them do ten minutes of math facts every night and take a test every week (working from 1x1 to 144/12 through the year), so she does quite a bit of reinforcement of basic arithmetic. But, from what I understand, this is in addition to the Everyday Math time (which they have to keep skipping on with to stay on schedule even when kids haven't grasped the concepts).

My now 8th grader hit the TERC (then CMP) peak at our school and has done very little basic computation.
Anonymous said…
"It all seems so *inefficient*."

So right, but what can we do when we know our children are not being prepared to take required basic college math. We have talked to the teachers and principals and they just stick to their guns with "district mandated math"

I just do not want my kid to be the one who enters college wanting a career in engineering and then have to switch because she won't have the required math skills and will not be able to catch up.

And the district won't listen to we enroll our kids in private math classes. The WASL scores increase and then they say, "see it's working just fine...."

at this point it's just circular conversation
Anonymous said…
to anon at 8:20

'at this point it's just circular conversation

8:20 PM'

I'm starting to really get the sense that among the many reasons things are such a mess, 1 significant reason for the mess is that those involved in creating these mess policies haven't a clue about what is needed in any of the job market - they don't know that high school kids can't keep cashier jobs or get cashier because the kids can't make change when given 20.13 on a 3.13 bill, and they don't know that many of the imported technical workers have taken 2nd year USA college math in high school, and they don't know any of the this because they are so terrified of math, and because they have lucked into jobs requiring little few analytical skill they are completely out of touch with what has been happening in the economy for 35 years ---

there are zillions of low paying cashier type jobs, relatively few well paying technical jobs, and some middling paper pushing jobs that are on the endangered jobs list.

Have your off spring take some practice standardized tests so that you know where s/he is and where s/he needs to go.

I really feel bad for you, this is appalling.
dan dempsey said…
It is Sunday evening.
Today I saw a partial solution to the district's near total misalignment with the National Math Panel Report.

A book called:
A Blueprint for the Foundations of Algebra from the Mind Institute.

It consists of 101 lessons in 18 chapters. It is a no nonsense book, that prepares students for Authentic Algebra as defined by the National Math Panel. The fact that this book has 101 lessons in 18 chapters means that the district could still use some Connected Math as a supplement (thus our middle school adoption of 2006 will not be a total waste of money).

W. Steven Wilson PhD. is involved with the production of this book. He was one of the 12 mathematicians on the Mathematics Standards Study Group. He is also an adviser to Linda Plattner of Strategic Teaching, who has been working for the State Board of Education to get us out of our OSPI produced math mess.

As far as how to bring Everyday Math into a useful support for the recommendations of the NMP, all I have come up with is:

1... Run the books through a wood chipper.
2... Use this product as a fertilizer mulch to grow trees.
3... Process the trees into Wood pulp
4... Make paper
5... Produce new books called Singapore Math.

If we are in a big hurry.
1... Recycle the books into paper
2... Produce new books called Singapore Math.

Now for the High School Adoption - how to follow the National Math Panel report which recommends authentic algebra, when kids do not know the fractions, decimals and percents necessary to undertake algebra.

Tough to recover from a decade of misdirection in a couple of months.

Where is that much talked about holding people accountable?

Oh right, I forgot that does not apply to SPS central level administration.
dan dempsey said…
The School Board work session on the High School Math adoption, from 4PM to 5:25 before the 6 PM board meeting on 3-26-08, had better look at k-12 math.

Given the District's use of k-8 math materials that prepare very few students with the foundation needed to learn high school math, how can we adopt any materials at the high school level that will prepare students for success in the collegiate level mathematics courses needed for engineering?
Anonymous said…
I encourage anyone who is interested to actually sit in a class or two of "Everyday Math". You will be shocked to find out exactly how bad it really is. Nobody listens, because, well nobody could. It is boring beyond belief. There's nothing intersting, fun, or engaging about it. And there's no practice or mastery of anything. Perhaps schools do need those coaches. But my high performing school is way to arrogant to submit to being observed. They could really use the coaches if they're going to keep this up.
old salt said…
I don't think high performing schools qualify for coaches.
Anonymous said…
All I know is that as a special education teacher who tests kids from the general population to see if they have learning disabilities, almost every kid that I have tested this year has been at the 1st grade level for math computation, regardless of grade (2-5). And this includes kids that were not initially seen as having a problem with math. Statistically, this many kids can't have dyscalculia - in my professional opinion,they have not been taught the skills.

And no district training has been offered for Singapore Math, even though the books are sitting in boxes in schools.

Anonymous said…
To qualify for special education, students are supposed to demonstrate learning deficits after being provided adequate instruction. So, if no real instruction has been provided, and students consequently have a skill deficit (as in math or reading), students should NOT qualify for special education.

Seattle has a SIT team process which is supposed to identify ways to keep students out of special education. Perhaps SIT teams should require that the students in question be taught using Singapore, or other math methodology that may actually work for the child. The current process of over identification to special education encourages poor general education and starves the system for those who have true disabilities. Special education isn't supposed to be for "teaching disabilities", which include poor curriculum.
Anonymous said…
Special education in Seattle has ignored the Response to Intervention framework that has called for drastic instructional interventions in many states in the nation. What are we waiting for here? Special education here means your kid is labeled, not the educational program is SPECIAL. It is shameful.
Anonymous said…
Special education in Seattle has ignored the Response to Intervention

They haven't ignored it. There's a "CORE" team studying it now. But it's clear it will take a very long time to move in that direction at the current rate. The district has aired it's dirty laundry, and has seemingly admitted its woefully inadequate performance in its special education review which is available to all. It almost seems like they're waiting for parents to act and force them into doing the obvious. Too bad it's so expensive. Parents wealthy enough to force them into compliance, are also wealthy enough to have other options.
dan dempsey said…
Anonymous said...

....To qualify for special education, students are supposed to demonstrate learning deficits after being provided adequate instruction. So, if no real instruction has been provided, and students consequently have a skill deficit (as in math or reading), students should NOT qualify for special education.

Yes the special ed placement folks now have the category of "Instructionally Disabled". Professionals are having more and more difficulty trying to determine who is instructionally disabled and who actually qualifies for special ed.

Everyday Math is producing lots of instructionally disabled students nationally. It has a 30% market share of elementary math texts but probably a much higher share of the instructionally math disabled.

This is just another example of how little relevant data influences SPS thinking in an SPS math adoption.

High school adoption is now upon us.

EM adoption ignored the NCTM Focal Points. Look for the High School adoption to ignore the National Math Panel Report of March 13, 2008.

How can we continue to employ decision-makers this bad?


Really bizarre I read a blog post that the Pittsburgh Public Schools are aware that Seattle is supplementing Everyday math with Singapore Math. That is really interesting as at a given grade level Singapore math consists of two textbooks, one for each semester, and two accompanying workbooks for those texts. SPS bought none of those just the extra practice book per student, which remains in boxes. I met a very involved teacher from an SPS elementary school, who was unaware that her school even had a Singapore workbook for each child.

Our Chief Academic Officer was right when she said that Singapore Math might not be needed and the teachers will need little training for Singapore. This is one of the few times she is absolutely 100% correct on a math statement.

If you leave all the student materials in boxes (all the materials being one tiny extra practice book) and never make some the teachers aware of the existence of the materials, then ZERO training is required.

Hey let us call Pittsburgh and see how our Singapore supplementation of Everyday Math is going.

Let me see now a little math --
180 school days x 25% = 45 days.
Could someone ask Ms Santorno when we will be expecting our 25% supplement will it be Singapore exclusively the last 45 days of school? What we were promised a 25% Singapore supplement and it is not happening.

So far it has been only All Day Everyday Math.

Looks like CAO stands for Centralized Autocratic Oppression. These folks do whatever they like with no regard for relevant data - or valid research. Everything is justified by cherry-picked data at board presentations and then the admin does whatever they like to us (not for us).

The Math Underground

School Truth
Anonymous said…
Yes the special ed placement folks now have the category of "Instructionally Disabled".

This is really a displacement of special education funding. That is, a transfering of special education funds into general education, again. A significant portion of SLD in reading at a minimum, are definitely "Instructionaly Disabled", not all as result of the school. Parents who don't send their kids to school consistently or provide for them adequately, also wind up in special education, which was never meant to solve every social ill. However, we find our SPS unwilling to meet students where they are.
dan dempsey said…
GREAT NEWS the district that never answers much about anything important when asked, now has a way to submit math adoption questions on the SPS Website.

Hey maybe they will even answer some of the questions. There is always a first time. After 14 months of testimony one answer would be a start.

Click HERE to go there.

You will find the Click here at the bottom of the page on the next to last line.
This will then bring up the form to submit questions or comments.

The district has now decided to wait for the State. I wonder who pressured downtown to act in a rational way? Must have been a board member of two involved.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools